This is re-post of an interesting set of comments from exactly four years ago by my friend and colleague Jeff Siker, a New Testament scholar who agrees with most of the critical views I have of the New Testament but who is still a believing and practicing Christian. This is part 2. To make fullest sense of this post, you should read it in conjunction with the one from yesterday.

Like Bart I became interested in pursuing an academic career, but with some grounding in the life of the church. And so after my BA and MA (Religious Studies) at Indiana University, I went off to Yale Divinity School. And so my trajectory from Young Life in high school to Indiana to Yale was rather different from Bart’s trajectory from Moody to Wheaton to Princeton. Whereas much of Bart’s education involved the study and practice of Christian apologetics (being able to defend one’s faith and challenge others – akin to Josh McDowell’s then very popular Evidence that Demands a Verdict, which I had also studied along the way), my own Christian faith involved a much less strident and argumentative approach to defending the truth of the Bible. I began to understand significant differences in the New Testament as different perspectives that did not necessarily have to be reconciled to each other (anathema for those who believe the Bible is internally consistent in every regard). At Indiana University the study of religion did not include a confessional approach. Courses on the Bible stressed historical and literary contexts, including the history of interpretation across different approaches to Scripture (e.g., the Alexandrians vs. the Antiochenes regarding the matter of allegory). Truth claims about faith grounded in Scripture was not part of my academic study. There was certainly a challenge to integrate what I was learning in the classroom with my developing faith life, which was nurtured in the mainstream tradition of Protestant liberalism.

This integration continued at Yale Divinity School and after my ordination (PCUSA) in my two years as a pastor to a small church in rural Michigan. At Yale I also grew familiar with the various movements of liberation theology in addition to classic Protestant theology. In retrospect I would say that increasingly I came to see my understanding of biblical interpretation as a conversation between the biblical authors and modern faith in seeking to discern God’s presence and the leading of God’s Spirit in both personal faith and the life of the church. Not only was this a rich conversation between modern and ancient communities of faith, it was a banquet of conversations that involved all of church history and hundreds of biblical commentators across the ages. This understanding only grew deeper during the Ph.D. program at Princeton Theological Seminary.

FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!

You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.

Comments

Speaking of Yale, Dr. Ehrman, would it be possible to get a similar account from Dale Martin, who not only is a critical scholar who still believes, but it also an openly gay man? I’m curious what his journey has been, especially how much push back he gets from fundamentalists and evangelicals who believe he’s a thorough-going sinner.

I’m happy for Prof. Siker, because *he’s* obviously happy with his life and faith…and still tolerant of those who don’t believe as he does.

But I admit I find it hard to understand people being so obsessed with Christianity, in the first place, that they devote their lives to studying it. When I was still quite young, I decided there was no good reason for believing in the existence of a supernatural Being separate from and superior to ourselves. Given that, I didn’t have to think about the merits of specific theistic religions. But when I later did, with a mild interest, I was surprised to learn how shaky the foundation of Christianity really is.

This would strike most Catholics as shocking. But I’m glad I was raised Catholic, for two reasons. When I was in high school, a priest gave us the *methodology* for arriving at belief: *first* become convinced of the existence of God (as I eventually didn’t), *then* of the “correct” religion (for him, Christianity), and finally, the “correct” denomination (for him, Catholicism). And I found Catholicism so unpleasant that I had no regrets in walking away from it.

Fair enough! But in higher education people are obsessed by all sorts of things they want to study without “believing in” them! Shakespeare, Marx, Freud, capitalism, Aristotle, Nietzsche, Hitler, James Ussher — the list is in extremely long! Nothing wrong with waniting to study Christianity! (Or Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Shinto, Confucionism, Hinduism, and and and)

Wilusa, I’ve studied most of the major religious, and I’m an atheist. I don’t believe any of it. Why? Because studying religion is an excellent window in to the human psyche. When Jesus (purportedly) says “Love your enemies” and The Buddha (purportedly) says “Love conquers hate” you know there’s something deeper going on in the human mind.

On the one hand, I too find it hard to understand that degree of obsession.

On the other hand, here we are, both of us, paying for the privilege of reading the blog of a Bible scholar, reading his books (I think I’ve read about half of Bart’s books…and I think that’s a lot of reading), and generally interesting ourselves in it.

And then I also think about all the hours I’ve spent reading, and re-reading, and re-re-50-re-reading The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion, and four versions of the Narn i Chîn Húrin (or The Tale of the Children of Húrin if you prefer the English title to the Sindarin Elvish)…and I start to understand obsessions a little. And I’m not even that Tolkien crazy: I know of one Norwegian atheist who has translated the New Testament from Greek into Quenya Elvish:¹ probably the nerdiest thing I’ve ever heard of, which I admire while having no desire to replicate. And I’ve NEVER believed in the reality of Arda.

Your Catholic priest’s methodology is interesting. Likewise, I was raised Catholic by my mom. In my experience though, one of the priests at my high school engaged my doubts philosophically; that was his methodology. And I look back now and am thankful he did. He engaged me to think it through by reading, and by giving all the views an ear–including other religious understandings.

Alas, none of it was convincing–well, perhaps Gautama tried keeping it real. Today, I continue to read, give an ear, and be open to something that may convince.

I’ll admit though, that as the intellectuals continue to pore over the sundry texts and tenets of the belief systems, and archaeology unearths enough to question the congruence of those texts, all of these belief systems appear to me to be bollo…, er, hooey.

Belief systems shape the world we live in, and always will. They shape your life, your decisions, whether you admit it to yourself or not. To understand what they are and how they work is a vitally important field of study.

You think you’ve walked away from belief, but you just walked away from one version of it (and your response here indicates that it still has a hold on you, is still impacting you in a variety of ways–“Once a Catholic”).

No human can ever avoid believing in things that can’t be proven. It’s one of the universal constants of our existence. But how we respond to it–and which beliefs we choose, to embrace or attack–that can be infinitely varied.

Dr. Ehrman, Thank you for your candidness at MSU this last week. Thank you as well for posting this. I have been very intrigued by what you had to say, and my children are still talking about it. This letter from Mr. Siker has served to confirm my suspicion of how we can agree on so much, and yet, still come to different conclusions. I would say my position is somewhere between yours and Siker’s. For reasons I shared with you after class, I have also found myself separated from my church. The quote “Jesus proclaimed the coming of the kingdom of God, but all we got was the church!” resonates with my view of things. Honestly, I do not know why I call myself Christian other than I have no other name for explaining my belief. Also, it is my faith of origin and will therefore always effect my perspective. It is certainly not indicative of any doctrinal belief aside from believing that Christ was in some way an offering of salvation to humanity, that it was in fact Christ who has saved me. The details of what that salvation is and what it is from or unto seems to remain ineffable except to say it’s accompanied by an overwhelming conviction to love and not judge others by superficial markers, like race or religion. I have also felt increasingly more driven to understand various religions as fully as possible without having to convert, because I know I could never wholeheartedly convert as long as those religions are not all inclusive or if they would serve to stagnate my beliefs. Considering how young I was (aprox. 5-7 years old) when I was telling grown Pentecostal pastors how little concern I had for their tradition of not letting women be pastors while also telling them I wanted to study God and be a pastor when I grew up (I used their scriptures to debate their doctrine and they did concede) my ability to question my church on these foundational issues is no surprise. I am also fairly certain this combination of seeing some truths within the story of Christ as it has been recorded and conveyed to me as well as my ability to question the absurd, even hypocritical, within the communally lived out aspects of my religion could lead me to share a view between yours and your friends.

Then toss in an awareness of how so many religions hold similarities, as if the biggest difference is just the narratives and doctrines that arise from them, and here I am. (Distinctly different and yet the same?) My personal opinion about any religion, and any other set of opposing groups, is that they are all in some ways correct and in some ways wrong. The task of one seeking truth should therefore be to sort out the strands of each and form belief according to what shows itself to be true. For example, the truth of a metaphor can be found in the principles it conveys.

I appreciate the opportunity to access your blog. I look very forward to learning more. Seeing as I have already been so candid on a semi public forum I should probably let everyone know a bit about me. I am a senior undergrad at MSU college of Arts and Letters and I am working on an interdisciplinary degree in philosophy, psychology, and world religions. Prior to transferring to MSU I attended Lansing Community College and Kellogg Community College. In my early twenties I attended a local bible training institute meant to prepare students for ministry. I left due to differences, I have since been completely cut off from that community due to similar differences. That is why I leave them unnamed, out of respect for their right to hold their position without judgment even if I strongly disagree with it, and this is a semi public forum where they are not present to defend themselves. In my youth I was enrolled in the local public schools where I began my career in ditching somewhere round the 6th grade. Instead of attending classes I would go to the park and read my text books, or any other book I had, in peace and quiet. Again, thank you for this opportunity to learn more. I am admittedly at the beginning of this journey from the academic perspective. I hope I have not been to forward.

Interesting testimony indeed. Jeff’s point about not having been reared in the more extreme form of historical evangelicalism, like yourself, makes sense regarding his ability to continue believing. Conservative evangelicalism and fundamentalism are squabbling siblings, IMO, and despite the separatist, idiosyncratic characteristics of fundamentalism (1611 KJV, hair length, rock music, yadda, yadda) they are more than close in terms of theology. The theological notions of what one “must” or ought to believe are far more present in the fundygelical subculture as opposed to a less conservative evangelical subculture, hence, when someone breaks from the more dogmatic form of the religion, it tends to be more dramatic (due to the realization that the certainties you’ve accepted are themselves built upon sand) The problem I have in believing the “story” is in what appears to be a credibility issue with Jesus (or at least the Jesus that was fabricated within the last 2,000 years). I would love to say I am a Christian were it not for the reality that the Jesus I am supposed to embrace made promises that simply did not come to pass. Mark 9:1 – “….there are some of you standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power; In Mark 14:61-62 (and Matthew 26:26:63-64) Jesus is asked by the high priest if he is the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed one, and Jesus responds, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the power and coming and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Matthew 24 – This generation shall not pass, etc. These are but a few examples that demonstrate a Jesus who never returned when he said he would return (major credibility issue). I’m curious to know if any of this grinds on Jeff as well. Maybe it just grinds on those of us who were a part of a subculture that absolutised these stories despite the unfulfilled promises from the guy at the center of it all.

BTW, nice seeing/hearing you at MSU the other night. It was a great talk. Thanks for signing my copy of How Jesus Became God.

While I prefer Jeff Siker’s point of view to that of fundamentalists like Franklin Graham and wholeheartedly wish his p.o.v. dominated Christian discourse I still have problems with his views.

In this universe in which we find ourselves what evidence is there that a god even exists?

Most people accept the religious beliefs of their culture and their family. But with all the multitudinous systems of belief in this wide world what are the chances that we just happened to be born into the right one? Our conceptions of deity seem so time bound and culture bound. What reason do we have to think they are anything else? The Bible is clearly a product of human creativity and I’m glad many Christians have accepted this but what reason is there to think it is anything else?

I do not require total understanding. We don’t fully understand gravity but we see its effects. We don’t fully understand quantum physics but we can make super accurate predictions based on the math. We don’t understand dark matter but we can detect it by its effects.

Where are the “effects” of a god?

I have to have faith? Well no I don’t. Just some compelling reason to think any of it is true in the first place.

There are ways, some seen here, of philosphising away the ‘problem of pain’. But it works only with people, and only if you assert the claim of eternal life for them. It does not explain the problem of pain in the animal world, or, alternatively, why a God worthy of our respect would have inflicted all that pain on non-sentient beings because of the sin of humans.

I am not sure I follow the Jeff Siker’s arguments at all. He offers no new insights in terms of how he changed his Christian beliefs in order to hold onto faith in God. Really dissapointing for someone as learned as he is. I am more persuaded by someone like John Shelby Spong who admits that he does not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the Virgin birth, but instead sees Jesus life as an expression of who he believes God is. In essence Spong calls from a move away from theism to seeing God as more of a transcendent ground of Being as Spong puts it. You can disagree with Spong but I find his theology congruent as opposed to Peter Enns who believes in evolution but somehow still believes in the fall and eternal redemption through Jesus. I am sorry, Siker owes us a more coherent explanation of his faith, I am really annoyed at what seems to be an emotional argument put forward by a biblical scholar.

I did not mean it in that sense. My point is around holding oneself out as a biblical critical scholar who still holds a traditional view of Christianity yet offers no “bridge” to help the rest of us understand how that is possible.

Prof. Sikes writes “Why do I still believe, even knowing the same historical-critical information that Bart knows?” To be clear on what it is that he does believe, I asked him and he very graciously answered. He does not believe the Nicene Creed, he does not believe in the Trinity or that Jesus is God, he does not believe Jesus’ death redeemed mankind and (if I understand him correctly) he does not believe in Jesus’ bodily resurrection. Yet he considers himself a Christian because he appreciates Jesus as one of those iconic examples of altruism and public rebellion against opposition, an example of faith that God will make everything alright … life from death, possibility from impossibility. By this definition, it seems you might consider yourself a “Christian” after all … except for your inconvenient agnosticism. Prof. Sikes does still believe that God exists.

I must say even liberal Christians will not consider him a Christian. I think he identifies himself as a Christian but 99% of Christians will probably not consider him a Christian. I say this as an agnostic.

Heard a new fundamentalist claim … since God is the creator, then God would not put anything unscientific in the Bible . Everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, including the 7 day creation, young earth and a complete rejection of evolution. This from a highly educated professional. Amazing ?

Prof. Siker, do you agree or disagree with Prof. Ehrman’s account of Jesus’s understanding of himself, i.e. that he was chosen by God to rule an earthly Kingdom of heaven after a divine Son of Man had destroyed all his (God’s) enemies? If you agree, how do you reconcile the fact that things did not turn out at all as Jesus expected? In what sense could his faith have survived the realization, at some point during his final ordeal, that God was not going to rescue him, in this life at least, and in what sense could he have been the divine son of God if he was so grossly mistaken?

It seems to me that being a believer or a non-believer has much more to do with emotion than any type of analysis. People (and all animals) are attracted to those things that make them feel good and repelled by those things that make them feel bad. I imagine that someone will have their “come to Jesus” moment when they hear or read things like “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son…” Beautiful words for many people though they have no “feel good” impact on me. On the other hand, when some of us find out the Bible is not inerrant as we have been led to believe, this revelation (or some other dis-enchanting experience) really effects us negatively and we turn away from Christian beliefs. For other people that negative feeling is not that strong so has little impact on their beliefs. It appears that Jeff Siker has the “feel good” associated with Christian teachings but not the negative feelings associated with feeling deceived. Bart seems to have had both the good feelings and then the bad feelings associated with Bible studies.

I have never had a “feel good” moment from any kind of spiritual message, so I cannot say what that may be like. But I imagine it must be like falling in love. You meet some one you are attracted to, you enjoy some good conversation or laughter or other thing that really feels good, then you are ready to spend the rest of your life with that person. Rationality becomes of secondary importance compared to the good feeling, in spite of all warnings from friends and relatives. The feeling good part of being in love is clung to for as long as possible, maybe for life, though it is too often superseded by some negative aspect of the relationship resulting in break-up.

This comparison of feeling in love to “feels right” spiritual devotion is my own thought. You folks on the blog feel free to tell me if I am wrong about this.

I have often wondered about the Apostle Paul’s conversion from persecutor of Christians to a primary recruiter of the faith. But in one of Bart’s lectures it came clear to me. Here was this guy trying to figure out how Jesus could be anyone’s savior when he was apparently cursed by being hung from a tree (crucified) although he committed no sin worth of execution. When he came to his own thought that Jesus must have died for everyone else’s sins, what a “feel good” moment that must have been. The emotion must have been quite fantastic and turned him into the apostle he became. Whether or not he had a vision of Jesus, he certainly had his “come to Jesus” moment.

I read Wilusa’s response from Part one, about children being dragged to church when they don’t want to go, and wondering why adults go to church if they don’t have to. Well, with the adults I know there may be some sense of obligation to go to church but mostly they go because it “feels good”. And if it feels good to the adult, it should feel good to the children they drag along, and other adults they try to talk into going. The problem here is that people are not very good at knowing what feels good to them does not necessarily feel good to their children or other people.

I think Prof. Siker nails it. I have seen all too often the quick trip former fundamentalists make to atheism with a short stop at liberal Christianity, when exposed to modern biblical scholarship. I wish he could explain more what he means by “ridiculously wonderful.”

Many thanks. And yes, now that you mention it, it is strange! I think I’ve always interpreted it to me “if we forgive others then please forgive us.” But you’re right, that’s not actually what it says!

I don’t understand French, and I’m curious as to what the issue was here! It obviously deals with the part of the “Lord’s Prayer” usually rendered in English as “forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.” (I’ve also heard “forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors” – when it’s sung as a hymn.) I’ve always interpreted it the same way you did.

The gist: if the Lord’s prayer asks God to forgive us as we have forgiven others (or because we have forgiven others), isn’t this asking God to be at least as ethical and forgiving as we are? Isn’t that kind of strange, that we’d have to ask for God to be ethical and forgiving, using ourselves as the model?

Wow! Once again I am really impressed by these two posts. I assume Dr. Siker’s views remain pretty much as he described them previously. I don’t feel lied to by my church leaders, but I do feel that my church leaders failed to educate themselves in Introductory Bible History 101 (canonization, textual criticism, historical criticism) which is the least they could have done. They needed to deal with the question of why they quote the Bible before they started quoting it. It’s not good enough to just say it is “the Word of God.” People say all sorts of stuff.

I appreciate what Jeff says here but I wonder how much it enters into his decision to remain a Christian is simply to not give up entirely on what he was taught when he was young. It seems to me that someone who understands the history behind the making of God, the making of the Israelite nation, the process of changing a human Jesus to a cosmic deity and the making of the Bible, that they certainly have to understand that any religion that a person holds onto is man-made. Do you have your students long enough to notice any change of thinking with them regarding religion and the ideas that they were initially taught?

I was hoping Jeff Siker would be able to throw some light on how people can still hold onto their faith after having been exposed to all this material, unfortunately it did not happened for me. For the life of me I cannot understand how someone can hold onto a belief in a Christian God after seriously studying the history of this religion. All the religious teachings, doctrines and explanations do not make sense to me, but seem so contradictory. I wish I could understand, I have wrestled with this for a number of years, but to no avail. I really wish someone could enlighten me, something that would make sense to me. I do however understand how one can be a fundamental Christian, I was one for 50 years, but in hindsight I believe it was all due to indoctrination. If I would have lived on another inhabited planet, I would have simply been indoctrinated by a different set of beliefs, which would have simply been whatever that culture had come to believe.

I remember, Bart, finding Jeff’s reasons disappointing when I first read them a couple of years ago. Re-reading them more carefully now, I better understand why.

Jeff offers four reasons for why he still believes. I would summarize his first and second reasons this way: Having come to faith in a more moderate/liberal tradition and having studied the Bible at a secular university, he didn’t feel betrayed by the church when he encountered historical-critical approaches to understanding the Bible. Jeff’s third reason merely restates his accomplishment: he continues, as an adult, to believe. And his fourth reason is that the problem of human suffering doesn’t inhibit his ability to believe in the existence of a gracious God.

So, for me, human suffering isn’t a problem, either. Maybe it would be if I believed in God. How could a powerful and loving God allow all this misery? But, for suffering to be a problem for me, I’d have to believe first.

That’s where *my* problem is, Bart. Christianity posits that, in addition to our familiar physical world peopled by us physical beings, there exists a spiritual world peopled by spiritual beings and that this spiritual world is in no way dependent upon our physical world. In fact, dependence runs the other way: our physical world was created by a spiritual God and continues to be governed by Him.

But, why would I believe such a thing, Bart? And, why would Jeff? If it makes sense to him that these independent, non-physical beings do in fact exist, more power to him. But, it doesn’t make sense to me that they should. And, nothing in Jeff’s four reasons suggests to me why such a notion would make sense to him, either.

So, I very much appreciate Jeff offering us four reasons why he believes in a gracious God. Perhaps, if you asked him, he’d be willing to venture us a fifth reason, a reason why he believes in the existence of independent non-physical beings at all?

If I had the opportunity, I would ask Dr. Siker what, exactly, he believes on faith. If he self-identifies as a Christian, what should we take from God raising Jesus? If we should understand something important, why does it seem so difficult to get that understanding – based on the wide range of understandings within Christianity.
If God has a message for humanity, why use humans and religious texts to express that message?

Those are all strange reasons to still believe – never being lied to, being conservative, from literal to critical reading, and being called to embrace human suffering! I am absolutely flabbergasted.

Jeff should study truth claims the bible gets utterly wrong and see if faith remains. 1) The bible claims 10 000 years ago the earth was created, enormous interdisciplinary science says 4.5 Billion. 2) 99.9℅ of the universe, and most of earth is hostile to life and the Earth will be inhabitable in 900 million because our oceans will boil away, not a place conducive to life. 3) Religion with gods are new to Earth, Christianity is 2000 years old, humans are 2 Million years old. 4) We share 98℅ of our genome with a chimpanzee and 40℅ with a banana, the evidence is evolution, not creationism as Genesis states. 5) The bible has been changed and copied hundreds of times over centuries, play Telephone with 10 people for 10 minutes, tell me if original sentences remain.

In my view Jeff has to ask himself some hard questions, especially – is truth at any cost worth it.

How can someone cede all that ground to science and still believe? On the sixth day in Genesis Man is created, after all the beasts of the land. This is creationism unless Jeff or anyone else does some intense language gymnastics calling this allegory or metaphor, or that this sixth day is actually millennia – which I really really really think the authors meant one day.

I think you’re confusing “belief” with “fundamentalism.” They are not the same thing at all. Enlightened believers do not have a fundamentalist understanding of the Bible or of the relationship of science and religion.

No, I am making the point that when science contradicts the bible Jeff retreats into belief or a liberal interpretation, which is a nice way of saying allegory, metaphor, or the passage does not make sense. Belief or faith means I have no evidence and my critical thinking has been suspended, but I believe anyway.

0

0

XanderKastanJanuary 30, 2017

Bart, Great post.

I have 3 questions related to your debate with Justin Bass. They are all separate questions and if you respond to any or all of them, I would expect it to take at least one post per question. So you might answer one at some point and save the others and try to answer them further down the road:

1) Could you elaborate on your comments that identifying Jesus with Yahweh is the heresy of Sebellianism?

2) 1 Corinthians 11:23 — 26. From what you said, I take it that although this doesn’t go back to Jesus, it does go back to very early in the development of Christianity. And it says that Jesus is the one God sent to suffer for others. I recall that is the viewpoint that the Gospel of Mark portrays. So, I infer that this particular view of Jesus must be a very early development (before Paul converted), even if Mark was written roughly three decades later.

3) My second question inspired another one. Could you discuss why James Crossley dates Mark relatively early and why he is in the minority on this among critical scholars?

1. Sabellianism is the belief that Jesus the Son is the *same* as God the Father. 2. Yes, it’s an early developmenbt. 3. I don’t know his arguments. Most schoalrs date Mark to around 70 CE because a passage such as 13:1 seems to presuppose the destruction of the temple.

Very interesting post. My question to him would be, since You and Him both have the same information about the New Testament how can he believe along a conservative line of belief knowing the scriptures are historically unreliable. Then again, I guess it is possible to piece together a theology/philosophy based on principles within the New Testament even if the actually historical events are inaccurate.

Currently taking a survey of the Old Testament under Dr. Daniel Smith-Christopher from Loyola Marymount, and it has been fascinating. I’m actually upset that churches and Hollywood give us Gibson-esque portrayals of the Old Testament (as well as the NT) rather than the the much more fascinating and meaningful conversations we could actually be having based on archaeology, anthropology, sociology, history, textual criticism, etc. (I know I’m preaching to the choir here).

Especially with the current debacle going on with certain presidential executive order, I often find myself disappointed not necessarily with the church, but quite often very disappointed with church leadership. Still, I find hope, as bulletins this week across the Catholic domain spoke out in favor of the dignity of refugees and the need for immigration reform–in other words what Jesus was referring to when he quoted Deuteronomy!

I agree with Dr Siker–you still maintain all the best parts of being a Christian regardless of the title.

Prof. Nikes seems not to believe “in” Christianity but still agree with what Christianity says about how we should live. I am not a Christian but agree with a lot of what Christ has said and acted toward others.

I suppose that if judged by the common standard based on belief, I would not be considered a Christian. I agree with a lot of what a lot of religions say. I also don’t believe a lot of it. It’s just a perspective thing. For me, at this point, it’s more about where I originated. It’s like saying my first language is American English, even if I’m living in Argentina and they only speak Spanish. All of my primary concepts are formed from American English and to learn Spanish I would need to sort my understanding of the new terms based on my original terms. But in the end, el bano and bathroom are still the same thing. When you never grounded yourself in the literal interpretation theory then you can move from it and maintain a metaphorical understanding and appreciation for the text and history. I don’t know, it’s my best guess.

Archives

The Triumph of Christianity combines deep knowledge and meticulous research in an eye-opening, immensely readable narrative that upends the way we think about the single most important cultural…Learn More

Bart D. Ehrman uses the latest research on memory and oral traditions to challenge how much we really know about Jesus from the Gospels. In Jesus Before the Gospels, he investigates the…Learn More

Bart D. Ehrman Discussion Forum

Don’t forget, when you join the “The Bart Ehrman Blog,” membership includes access to a very active discussions forum password secured for members only. While Bart normally cannot moderate the forum due to limited time, it provides members the opportunity to bounce thoughts off each other, to discuss recent posts by Bart, or any number of other insightful and topical discussions. You don’t want to miss out on this unique interaction feature!

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since April 2012, the blog has raised over $400,000 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations!

This is not for membership registration. Please click REGISTER on top bar.